(25-04-2013 04:19 PM)houseofcantor Wrote: The fact that any feminist remains feminist and has not moved on to humanism, kinda proves itself.

So the fact that people who fight for equal rights for minorities (and no, don't tell me the legal system treats them fairly because that is bullshit) are inherently radical because they aren't necessarily proponents for the humanist movement? Those are some pretty fucked up expectations.

Since when did women ever become a minority?

They are about half or more of the population.

We should be able to have equality with out blaming one another.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-

Everyone keeps defending these moderate feminists, but no one has yet to present any examples for analysis. I know of a few groups (mostly Canadian) that promote equality between the sexes, and none of them associate themselves with feminism. I once popped into a class on women's rights at Ohio State University (I had 3 hours to kill before my next class) and not only was I the only male there and constantly stared at, the whole class lecture seemed to be more anti-man than pro-woman. It was like I wandered into a clan meeting for women.

Feminism has not been relevant since we entered the 21st century. I ask you honestly to find an example of a woman being treated in a sexist manner without social backlash. Bosses who cross the line are routinely fired now. Any injustice done specifically because of a gender is made into a national crisis and dealt with. Feminists are no longer concerned with how women are treated (blanket statement!), rather they seem more concerned with rewiring human nature. They want men to stop staring at breasts and making dick jokes around females. To stop acting so "manly" and seeking to protect women by rescuing them in movies and video games. Good luck with that.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."

(25-04-2013 05:16 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote: Everyone keeps defending these moderate feminists, but no one has yet to present any examples for analysis. I know of a few groups (mostly Canadian) that promote equality between the sexes, and none of them associate themselves with feminism. I once popped into a class on women's rights at Ohio State University (I had 3 hours to kill before my next class) and not only was I the only male there and constantly stared at, the whole class lecture seemed to be more anti-man than pro-woman. It was like I wandered into a clan meeting for women.

Feminism has not been relevant since we entered the 21st century. I ask you honestly to find an example of a woman being treated in a sexist manner without social backlash. Bosses who cross the line are routinely fired now. Any injustice done specifically because of a gender is made into a national crisis and dealt with. Feminists are no longer concerned with how women are treated (blanket statement!), rather they seem more concerned with rewiring human nature. They want men to stop staring at breasts and making dick jokes around females. To stop acting so "manly" and seeking to protect women by rescuing them in movies and video games. Good luck with that.

Here are some not anti-men feminists. Their ideas are against heteronormativity, which means they're against the laws that determine a preference of men over women or any kind of sexual preference over other.
Their ideas stem from the original feminism (and that's why they study society from that perspective) but they're closer to humanism than to any of those extreme feminist wackos

If you can find something about Elsa Dorlin (a french sociologist) it would be great, she's very good at explaining modern feminist and gender equality theories.

Examples of sexism today you ask: only 14 countries in the world have legalized same-sex marriage, in almost every country in the world women get paid less for the same task than men, forced prostitution, "innocent" sexual abuse (men touching women in the bus), tv shows objectifying women bodies. Those are all symptoms and causes of sexisms.

Oh and I almost forget: Ridicule of men taking care of domestic work, enforcing the idea that men must be emotionless family sustainging drones, repeating the idea that men should have sex with as many women as possible to prove their masculinity, the barely complete lack of paternity leave laws everywhere are also examples of sexism. Yeah, the 21st century feminism realized that men are victims of sexism too, so they did contribute something.

(25-04-2013 05:35 PM)Logica Humano Wrote: Isn't one of the atheism's most effective jab at the moral "superiority" of religion is its mistreatment of women, even within western countries? Nach_in, thanks for the links by the way.

(25-04-2013 04:34 PM)Logica Humano Wrote: So the fact that people who fight for equal rights for minorities (and no, don't tell me the legal system treats them fairly because that is bullshit) are inherently radical because they aren't necessarily proponents for the humanist movement? Those are some pretty fucked up expectations.

Since when did women ever become a minority?

They are about half or more of the population.

We should be able to have equality with out blaming one another.

Hi! Welcome to Earth; we appreciate you choosing us as your destination this evening. Come have a seat right over here; we'll bring some drinks out to you shortly. And do enjoy your stay.

(25-04-2013 04:34 PM)Logica Humano Wrote: So the fact that people who fight for equal rights for minorities (and no, don't tell me the legal system treats them fairly because that is bullshit) are inherently radical because they aren't necessarily proponents for the humanist movement? Those are some pretty fucked up expectations.

Nobody has an obligation to say anything. In fact, we have the right to not say anything. That's something very important that has been forgotten and there are very serious consequences in the forgetting.

Neither does anyone have to justify themselves to someone else. To ask someone to is an attempt at domination.

Nor are they colleagues. No one can be found guilty by association. So why would we find someone guilty by affiliation? I have never demanded an apology from an American for the LITANY of atrocities and war crimes Americans have committed nor should any American feel obligated to offer one.

If someone wants to decry violence, more power to them. But it's separate from who they are. They do it because that's what they think and they choose to share their thought.

What's nefarious is when people who don't condemn violence in the strongest language possible, because they see complexity in the issue, are denounced as supporting the violence. It's an appalling way to stifle discourse.

Would you agree or disagree that there is a difference between individual rights and responsibilities and group rights / responsibilities?

(25-04-2013 05:31 PM)nach_in Wrote: ...
Their ideas stem from the original feminism (and that's why they study society from that perspective) but they're closer to humanism than to any of those extreme feminist wackos
...

The problem I have with humanism is that it is inherently:
anti-dolphin
anti-rat
anti-cockroach
anti-ant
anti-viral

Nobody has an obligation to say anything. In fact, we have the right to not say anything. That's something very important that has been forgotten and there are very serious consequences in the forgetting.

Neither does anyone have to justify themselves to someone else. To ask someone to is an attempt at domination.

Nor are they colleagues. No one can be found guilty by association. So why would we find someone guilty by affiliation? I have never demanded an apology from an American for the LITANY of atrocities and war crimes Americans have committed nor should any American feel obligated to offer one.

If someone wants to decry violence, more power to them. But it's separate from who they are. They do it because that's what they think and they choose to share their thought.

What's nefarious is when people who don't condemn violence in the strongest language possible, because they see complexity in the issue, are denounced as supporting the violence. It's an appalling way to stifle discourse.

Would you agree or disagree that there is a difference between individual rights and responsibilities and group rights / responsibilities?

(25-04-2013 05:31 PM)nach_in Wrote: ...
Their ideas stem from the original feminism (and that's why they study society from that perspective) but they're closer to humanism than to any of those extreme feminist wackos
...

The problem I have with humanism is that it is inherently:
anti-dolphin
anti-rat
anti-cockroach
anti-ant
anti-viral